Bibliographic record
Abstract
The ratification of Article 6 of the Paris Agreement allows countries to engage in compliance-based carbon markets which will allow countries to offset their own carbon emissions by investing in emissions reductions elsewhere. Given this recent development, it bears considering whether the international system is prepared to adopt existing voluntary carbon markets into a compliance system. Accordingly, this paper examines the nationally determined contributions (NDCs) of major REDD+ host countries to determine whether they are prepared to adopt this program under the compliance-based system. Given the well-documented risks of carbon offset markets to indirectly increase emission (via non-additionality, leakage, or incentivizing weak governance from host states), this paper argues that host states need to set clear guidelines towards the roles internal decarbonization policy and what is additional contributions from carbon markets. This paper ultimately argues that REDD+ is ill-equipped to function under a carbon market as host states appear reliant on REDD+ to achieve their own internal climate goals and suggests that better accountability is needed for REDD+ to be adopted under article 6.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".